JUDGMENT VACATED and CASE DISMISSED and Opinion Filed April 3, 

2024 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-23-00940-CV 

IKECHUKWU H. OKORIE AND VIVIAN N. OKORIE, Appellants 

V. 

MDREZAUL CHOWDHURY, Appellee 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3 

Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 003-02259-2023 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Goldstein 

Opinion by Chief Justice Burns 

This is an appeal from the trial court’s judgment and order of possession in a 

forcible detainer lawsuit. Asserting that the appeal is moot because appellants 

have vacated the property, appellee has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. 

The only issue in a forcible detainer suit is the right to immediate possession 

of the premises. See Olley v. HVM, L.L.C., 449 S.W.3d 572, 575 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. denied). Unless an appellant has a potentially 

meritorious claim of right to current, actual possession, the issue of possession and 

the case become moot when the appellant is no longer in possession of the 
 –2– 

premises. See Marshall v. Hous. Auth. of City of San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782, 

787, 790 (Tex. 2006). A judgment of possession in such an action is not a final 

determination as to whether the eviction is wrongful, but merely a determination of 

the right to immediate possession. See id at 787. When a party is no longer in 

possession of the property and cannot demonstrate a meritorious claim of right to 

current, actual possession, the case is moot and the reviewing court must vacate the 

judgment and dismiss the case. See id. at 788. 

The record before the Court shows that appellants’ lease for the property has 

expired. In their response to appellee’s motion, appellants assert the appeal is not 

moot because we have not considered their claim that appellee breached the 

contract terms. However, we do not address the merits where, as here, appellants 

have not demonstrated that they have a meritorious claim of right to current, actual 

possession. See id at 787. 

Appellants also assert the appeal is not moot because the collateral 

consequences exception to the mootness doctrine applies. In order to invoke the 

collateral consequences exception, appellants must show both that a concrete 

disadvantage resulted from the judgment and that the disadvantage will persist 

even if the judgment is vacated and the case dismissed as moot. See id. at 789. 

Appellants assert they “suffered adverse consequences as a result of [appellee’s] 

conduct” because they incurred repair and maintenance costs of the premises. The 

trial court’s judgment addressed only possession of the property. Because the 
 –3– 

judgment did not address any alleged repair-related damages, any such 

disadvantage did not result from the judgment. See id. (concrete disadvantage 

must result from judgment). Accordingly, we conclude the collateral 

consequences exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply. 

Because appellants have not demonstrated the appeal is not moot, we grant 

appellee’s motion to the extent that we vacate the trial court’s September 15, 2023 

judgment and dismiss the case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a); Marshall, 198 S.W.3d 

at 790. 

 

230940F.P05 

 

/Robert D. Burns, III/

ROBERT D. BURNS, III 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –4– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

IKECHUKWU H. OKORIE AND 

VIVIAN N. OKORIE, Appellants 

No. 05-23-00940-CV V. 

MDREZAUL CHOWDHURY, 

Appellee 

 On Appeal from the County Court at 

Law No. 3, Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 003-02259-

2023. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice 

Burns. Justices Molberg and Goldstein 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s 

September 15, 2023 judgment and order of possession is VACATED and this case 

is DISMISSED. 

 

 It is ORDERED that appellee MDREZAUL CHOWDHURY recover his 

costs of this appeal from appellants IKECHUKWU H. OKORIE and VIVIAN N. 

OKORIE and the cash deposit. After all of the costs have been paid, the trial court 

clerk is ORDERED to release the balance, if any, of the cash deposit to appellants. 

Judgment entered April 3, 2024